5.9, 5.6, 5.9, 6.0, 5.8, and the Russian judge gives it 2.1
In my emphatic view: yes.
Congress has every right to control how criminals are handled. But the President, as Commander-in-Chief, is the authority for Prisoners of War – or enemy combatants that do not qualify for POW status. Capturing and releasing in a war context is inextricably a function of war.
That motion would be ruled upon by the presiding officer, who in this case would be the Chief Justice of the United States.
The whole Senate could decide to overturn the decision of the chair, by simple majority.
Nope – at least, “nope” to the implication that the Senate has any power of impeachment. Only the House does. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5. The Senate tries a case of impeachment that has already occurred, and either acquits or convicts. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6. cochrane is absolutely correct:
You might want to reconsider your argument. Check who has generated the most signing statements, and I’d love to see some evidence of Obama ramping up executive privilege.
Why blow the cycles. He’s only got two more years in office. What more could possibly go wrong?
Noooo, not with that Satanic pope letting teh infidels pray in the Vatican and ushering in the End of Days! Or so I’ve read on Facebook.
That would be the same Facebook that just told us that Charles Manson was paroled, right?
Probably. I have Charlie and the girls blocked.
You say this like it hasn’t already happened.
:rereads name: Sam Stone is ripping into the GOP?! Wow, they are in trouble!
What happened, your well water got contaminated by fracking?
With cause, too. A cynic would argue that it was all planned that way; that the impeachment of Clinton was organized so that it would be too politically worrisome for the next President to be impeached, no matter what he did. And considering the grandiosity of Mr Gingrich, I find that worryingly plausible on its face.
Cut him some slack. He’s the last True Scotsman of the conservatives.
This may be tangential, but it’s something that I’ve wondered about for years:
Is there a rule in place that would prevent a PotUS from pardoning or exonerating himself?
Congress does not need a “legitimate reason” to impeach. Maybe for public opinion purposes they do but the reality is they can impeach for any reason whatsoever or even none at all.
Just be careful. The House is controlled by republicans so it is entirely possible they might impeach Obama. It will never get a conviction in the Senate but he could be impeached.
Clinton was impeached but not convicted. Your bet could see you paying out $10k even though the president will serve out his term.
Article 2, Section 2 prohibits presidential pardons for impeachment.
Actually, I’m pretty sure that already happened.
Anyway, the pardon power extends only to crimes. A POTUS who has been impeached by the House and removed by the Senate has not been convicted of any crime, he has only lost his job.
In some other thread I checked and found that even if the Republicans won every single Senate race in 2014, they would be one Senator short of being able to convict in an impeachment. I don’t think any more new special elections have come up that could change that, in theory.
Ever since Watergate the Republicans have hoped that something similar could destroy a Democratic president. The Monica Lewinsky “scandal” blew up in their faces. The American people were more mature than Congressional Republicans gave them credit for. As more details of this “scandal” leaked out, Clinton’s popularity went up.
Then Larry Flynt demonstrated that many of the same Republicans who expressed shock at Bill’s acts of folly were guilty of similar misdeeds. :o